Research in contemporary social movements: a case study of Guatemala 2015

Conclusions

The primary strain addressed was identified as a strain on values level 6-7 in Smelser’s taxonomy and in accordance with the theoretical predictions, we witnessed a progression throughout the lower levels of strain (norms, mobilization in to organizational roles, and situational facilities). Strain, furthermore, was widespread among the population, which was likely a significant reason for the great reach of the emergent general belief that was subsequently identified.

The general belief was strengthened by media coverage and the way that media covered the events, which had to accord with the movement constituencies and, at the same time, to maintain a ‘unifying discourse’ that united the peoples across historic dividing axes. This discourse significantly helped shape the general belief and fostering solidarity even across traditional divides.

We identified the main precipitating factor as the ´La Línea’ case, though both strain and general belief were unrelated to this particular case and had both been developing for a longer period. Prior to the ‘La Linea’ case many ‘incidents’ had happened, though this case was the particular ‘missing link’ that decisively provided a link between Molina and Baldetti and the widespread political corruption of the GT political system and class. An imminent question in this regard is ‘what would have happened had the La Línea case not been uncovered?’ Would or could the movement have been triggered by a different event? Would it simply have looked different? Etc. We cannot properly address those questions here, but they could help in formulating aspects for future research.

Mobilization, in accordance with the theoretical frame and the events, progressed as expected. Once the preliminary determinants had been ‘activated’ mobilization would be the next logical progression for the population and we should expect to see it if any action was taken to meet this end. This conclusion leads us back to the idea of political opportunities (or processes) as complex, multi-dimensional phenomena. Smelser’s model offers one way of thinking in these terms and to envisioning a complex and dynamic idea of a political process. In this case, the model has provided us with a tool for both predicting and understanding political opportunities, especially in relation to opportunities for mobilization (not as much in terms of opportunities for success). We saw, then, that the situation was readily appropriated through a creative use of social media, coupled with an informal organization. The organization, in addition, relied on specific, tangible goals and kept its own organizational formality extremely scarce.

Concerning social controls, we have noted that repressive control of the population has diminished in recent years, both generally speaking and in relation to the social movements we witnessed no application of force to subjugate the demonstrators. Political force was used against Claudia Paz y Paz to remove her from her position but the attempt to ‘turn the situation around’ failed with the replacement, Thelma Aldana, being no less perceptive to organized crime or corruption. In other cases and in earlier times alike political violence has been more pronounced whereas during these movements, forceful repression has been completely absent. Instead of repression of the population, the changing criminal structures have turned their attention to other means of control, not least because of their own organizational developments from hierarchical, centralized organizations to business-like, decentralized actors only guided by an economic pragmatism.

In RM terms the amount of resources pooled by the entire movement, in money terms, were extremely few. However, if we expand our conceptualization of ‘resources’, we do find that the movement was very successful in mobilizing various kinds of resources besides money. The central organization was also successful in ‘contracting organizational support’ under the ‘umbrella movement to sustain its force and pressure. In addition, this garnered legitimacy and credibility for the central movement, elite support and political influence, ‘indirect monetary resources’, and more. In terms of leadership and expertise, surprisingly little was required to mobilize the population, contrasting much research on the topic (Caniglia & Carmin 2010: 202). Although ‘supporting organizations’ rapidly joined the movement, original mobilization and provided additional venues for sustaining and increasing mobilization, leadership and organization, from the onset, was highly limited and the movement continued throughout to be directed primarily be informal coordination (i.e. Facebook & Twitter). Leadership remained absent throughout as well, though we may invoke the notion of ‘legal authority’ in terms of the roles of Ivan Velasquez, Thelma Aldana, Claudia Paz y Paz, and others, but in no instances was a ‘charismatic leadership’ decisively present¹³³.

Finally, concerning the success of the social movement, we have concluded that the social movement has been relatively successful in reaching its espoused goals. However, we must also note that the informal constituency of the movement allowed for a dispersion of participant goals, and perhaps most importantly, the goal of reformation was not achieved significantly although it was an expressed goal of many participants of the movement. However, it is still concluded that the primary goals of the movement were achieved. The mass-based movement, along with a broad organizational support was, I believe, strong factors in attaining the espoused goals in the end. Both, however, seemed to fade after the espoused goals were achieved, which may also go some way to explaining why significant reform was not achieved. We must note that a broader congressional support was not achieved until the demonstrations had developed into a massive force, in which organizational support left hundreds of stores closed in order for demonstrators to participate in the mobilizations. At this point, finally, the congress uniformly voted to strip Molina of his presidential immunity. When this goal was achieved, however, the elite and major organizational support dwindled and most demonstrators were too fatigued from 5 months of consecutive demonstrations, or they may have considered the major battle to be won. Regardless, the former strength of the movement dwindled, and these particularly important characteristics were lost along with the broad, simple, and unifying appeal that the movement had originally been apple to use to unify and mobilize its member-base. The dividing axes again became more pronounced once the ‘simple’ and tangible goals were achieved, keeping the movement ‘together’ and maintaining the strength and momentum it had originally possessed became more difficult. This may be an illustration as well of one of the significant difficulties of informal social movements: to maintain momentum for an extended period.